Prophecy Fulfillment - When?

[stevencarrwork]

In Matthew 24:5 Jesus says 'For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, ' and will deceive many.'

Who was the first person after this prophecy was made , who said 'I am the Christ'?

I find it hard to believe that nobody after that date has ever personally claimed to be the Messiah.

[Jin-Roh]

David Koresh comes to mind.
That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

[spl_cadet]

03-02-2003 @ 02:05 PM
stevencarrwork:

In Matthew 24:5 Jesus says 'For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, ' and will deceive many.'

Who was the first person after this prophecy was made , who said 'I am the Christ'?

I find it hard to believe that nobody after that date has ever personally claimed to be the Messiah.

Really? You hear about them on the news every now and then. I remember some years ago hearing of someone up in the LA area raping women after claiming he was the Second Coming.

If you want a current case, there is a guy in Russia claiming to be Christ, he's got a whole village or so believing him.

[dizzle]

Dear Steven:

I am not sure I understand your question, or perhaps more accurately, I do not understand your point. Are you trying to state that Christians are claiming that no one has done this? If so, I do not know what Christians you mean for none that I know fail to recognize that there have always been messianic pretenders.

However, Jesus's words were limited to a specific period of time, ie, the generation then living, and the book of Acts and the epistles of John mention false Messiahs and false teachers. Modern day examples are interesting but irrelevant to Jesus' words.

[stevencarrwork]

03-03-2003 @ 01:07 AM
Dee Dee Warren:

Dear Steven:

I am not sure I understand your question, or perhaps more accurately, I do not understand your point. Are you trying to state that Christians are claiming that no one has done this? If so, I do not know what Christians you mean for none that I know fail to recognize that there have always been messianic pretenders.

However, Jesus's words were limited to a specific period of time, ie, the generation then living, and the book of Acts and the epistles of John mention false Messiahs and false teachers. Modern day examples are interesting but irrelevant to Jesus' words.


There are Christians who claim that nobody in ancient Jewish society would call himself the Messiah
http://www.tektonics.org/secretmess.html

And Christians speak with even greater clarity in
http://www.tektonics.org/olivet01.html

'I have noted in other contexts that until the time of Bar Kochba, there is no evidence of any person actually coming forth and saying, "I am Messiah" or any person being identified as such, and I have argued that to make such a clear identification of one's "Messianic self" was likely not permitted socially.'

Actually the writer continues with 'We do of course have people who took some putative military action against Rome, and failed miserably; one suggests that they might well have made a claim had their little schemes succeeded -- Theudas and Judas are two examples (Acts 5:36-37),'

However, I find it really hard to believe that the Christian writer of those words thought those people were among the people prophesied to appear by Jesus in Matthew 24.

It is quite clear though that Jesus's prophecy in Matthew 24 could not have begun to be fulfilled until people claimed to be the Messiah.

Out of curiosity where do the letters of John talk about people claiming to be the Messiah?

Don't the letters say that there are anti-christs? This is a very different thing. For example 1 John 2:18 'Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.' (naturally if wasn't the last hour, or even the last millenium, or even the last-but-one millenium)

However, I look forward to having egg on my face once again when you show the reference in 1,2 or 3 John to people claiming to be the Christ.

[dizzle]

Dear Steven:

Give me some time to refer to the links you referred to for I believe we are doing a semantical dance here. And as far as John's epistles, forgive me for being unclear. If you read my last post I mentioned false Messiahs (which would be broadly antichrist by the way - so your objection I think is mute) and false treachers, thus I expanded your initial inquiry a bit. I will be back to respond in more depth.

[stevencarrwork]

03-03-2003 @ 10:32 AM
Dee Dee Warren:


Give me some time to refer to the links you referred to for I believe we are doing a semantical dance here. And as far as John's epistles, forgive me for being unclear. If you read my last post I mentioned false Messiahs (which would be broadly antichrist by the way - so your objection I think is mute) and false treachers, thus I expanded your initial inquiry a bit. I will be back to respond in more depth.

If you are referring to links
http://theskepticalreview.com/olivet/missed2.html covers some of the same ground.

To say somebody is the antichrist is not to say that they have stated that they are the Messiah. These are two different things.

However, I look forward to your references to 'false Messiahs' in 1,2 or 3 John or Acts. Antichrists I can find in plenty, but the epistles of John use this term to refer to people denying that Jesus was the Christ. 1 John 2:22 is a good passage for you to look up here. 'Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.'

Similarly, it is possible to be a false teacher , like Joseph Smith, and , like Joseph Smith, never claim to be the Messiah.

[dizzle]

It appears I did not make myself clear once again.. so rather than continue to muddle things up on the fly... I will wait until I can compose my complete response and explain myself fully then for you have once again misconstrued (and I will take the blame for poor communication) my point with John. I will get to you soon (and that is a preterist soon)

[stevencarrwork]

03-03-2003 @ 02:48 PM
Dee Dee Warren:

It appears I did not make myself clear once again.. so rather than continue to muddle things up on the fly... I will wait until I can compose my complete response and explain myself fully then for you have once again misconstrued (and I will take the blame for poor communication) my point with John. I will get to you soon (and that is a preterist soon)

You need time to post a complete response????

My question was 'Who was the first person after this prophecy was made , who said 'I am the Christ'?'

How long was this person's name that you need hours to type it in?????

Simply type the person's name, press send and your answer is finished.

[dizzle]

Dear Steven:

Sigh..... If you do not wish for me to respond at my own time and on my own terms suit yourself. I will get to this and respond in full as I see fit. Thank you. If you do not like that... oh well.

[stevencarrwork]

03-03-2003 @ 05:18 PM
Dee Dee Warren:


Sigh..... If you do not wish for me to respond at my own time and on my own terms suit yourself. I will get to this and respond in full as I see fit. Thank you. If you do not like that... oh well.

Of course, you may post whatever you wish.

But it is such a straightforward question, which should take only 3 or 4 words to answer.

[dizzle]

Dear Steven:


Have you seen this challenge?

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=24491#post24491

[stevencarrwork]

03-03-2003 @ 12:23 AM
spl_cadet:

If you want a current case, there is a guy in Russia claiming to be Christ, he's got a whole village or so believing him.

Does this claim make him the antichrist?

[jpholding]

Still trying to sow dissension, Stevie? :rofl:

Don't forget to include what I said about a certain key word missing in the Lucan and Markan parallels. You old (sun)dog. :brow:

[stevencarrwork]

03-03-2003 @ 05:25 PM
Dee Dee Warren:

Dear Steven:


Have you seen this challenge?

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=24491#post24491

Now I have seen it. Not sure about this private message malarkey. I'll see if I can work out how to read them.

[stevencarrwork]

03-03-2003 @ 06:39 PM
jpholding:

Still trying to sow dissension, Stevie? :rofl:

Don't forget to include what I said about a certain key word missing in the Lucan and Markan parallels. You old (sun)dog. :brow:

Still claiming that we should take poetry (eg Schubert's Die Winterreise) literally?

Are you claiming that we don't know what Jesus prophesied because the Gospellers simply changed what he said to suit their theological purposes?

If you are claiming Matthew added the phrase 'I am the Christ' (presumably to turn Jesus into a false prophet), then why did he do so? After all, Matthew knew as well as you.... ''I have noted in other contexts that until the time of Bar Kochba, there is no evidence of any person actually coming forth and saying, "I am Messiah" or any person being identified as such, and I have argued that to make such a clear identification of one's "Messianic self" was likely not permitted socially.'

So why did Matthew add the phrase and when was it fulfilled?

[dizzle]

Dear Steven:

On the issues of PMs... if you like I can change your settings so that you will get an email notifying you that you have a PM or a pop-up that lets you know when you enter TWeb or both. Let me know if you would care for any of that.

[spl_cadet]

03-03-2003 @ 09:26 AM
stevencarrwork:
Does this claim make him the antichrist?

An antichrist, though not the :poof the world is gonna end: antiChrist.

[diana]

One of the quotes in your sig just caught my eye:

"If your opponent is of choleric temper, try to irritate him. If he is arrogant, try to encourage his egotism. " -- Sun Tzu

Good advice for a duel but poor form for a debate. If you have to goad him or butter him up to win a debate, methinks you don't actually have a good argument yourownself.

But I've never seen you debate. I was just wondering why you have that in your sig.

d

[jpholding]

In rides Stevie Carr, with his loyal sun dog besides him,

Still claiming that we should take poetry (eg Schubert's Die Winterreise) literally?

Oh? Where's that, Pooh?

Are you claiming that we don't know what Jesus prophesied because the Gospellers simply changed what he said to suit their theological purposes?

Uh, no. :duh:

If you are claiming Matthew added the phrase 'I am the Christ'

No, he added only the last word. Stevie, do you even bother to READ my articles, or do you just sort of skin over them while drinking Beefeaters'?

(presumably to turn Jesus into a false prophet), then why did he do so?

Presumably to clarify further what title such persons would be claiming. Presumably to make explicit what was implicit, as a good rabbinic student would do. Hello? Have you learned nothing from the Contrived Gospels thread?

After all, Matthew knew as well as you.... ''I have noted in other contexts that until the time of Bar Kochba

Listen! The "SO WHAT" echoes all over the room...his readers knew that too, Stevie. :hrm:

In what year do you plan to actually understand these things?

[jpholding]

03-03-2003 @ 11:24 PM
diana:
Good advice for a duel but poor form for a debate. If you have to goad him or butter him up to win a debate, methinks you don't actually have a good argument yourownself.


Goading and buttering has other purposes. If you read Art of War, you may see. I could tell you what it's all about. But as they say in the movies, "If I tell you, I'll have to kill you." :brow:

[stevencarrwork]

03-03-2003 @ 10:02 PM
Dee Dee Warren:


On the issues of PMs... if you like I can change your settings so that you will get an email notifying you that you have a PM or a pop-up that lets you know when you enter TWeb or both. Let me know if you would care for any of that.

Thanks, but I managed to read my PM.

Any chance of you telling me who the first person was who claimed to be the Christ, so fulfilling the (rather contrived) prophecy in Matthew 24?

Mr. Holding is convinced it happened about 130 AD, when Bar-Kochba claimed to be the Christ.

[jpholding]

Any chance of you telling me who the first person was who claimed to be the Christ, so fulfilling the (rather contrived) prophecy in Matthew 24?

Mr. Holding is convinced it happened about 130 AD, when Bar-Kochba claimed to be the Christ.

No Stevie, I am NOT holding that position as you state it. But go on -- don't let me disturb you from your, er, fantasies. Never bugged you before to do stuff like this:

"People who says sun dogs look like suns are DELUDED!" :rofl:

[dizzle]

Dear Steven:

Maybe you could answer for me why so many atheists are so crabby. (that is rhetorical)

And as far as the PMs the suggestion was so that you would be alerted for future PMs...

And I will answer when I finish other things that are of a more pressing concern. You will have to wait your turn....

[stevencarrwork]

03-04-2003 @ 03:23 PM
jpholding:

Any chance of you telling me who the first person was who claimed to be the Christ, so fulfilling the (rather contrived) prophecy in Matthew 24?

Mr. Holding is convinced it happened about 130 AD, when Bar-Kochba claimed to be the Christ.

No Stevie, I am NOT holding that position as you state it. But go on -- don't let me disturb you from your, er, fantasies. Never bugged you before to do stuff like this:

"People who says sun dogs look like suns are DELUDED!" :rofl:

I quote a certain Christian author, who wrote :- ''I have noted in other contexts that until the time of Bar Kochba, there is no evidence of any person actually coming forth and saying, "I am Messiah" or any person being identified as such, and I have argued that to make such a clear identification of one's "Messianic self" was likely not permitted socially.'

Now we learn that it is NOT Mr. Holding's position that the first person who claimed to be the Christ was Bar Kochba.......


Baffling, simply baffling.

Perhaps Dee Dee Warren can tell us who the first person was who claimed to be the Christ (as prophesied in Matthew 24)

It really is a very simple question, as simple to answer as the question of why atheists are so crabby (Because we ask Christians questions and never get answers)

[dizzle]

Ah the mystery of Crabby Atheist Syndrome (C.A.S.) is solved. A great day on Planet Earth, and it was done the same day as my 14th wedding anniversary, which I am not going to spend answering your question BTW - no offense.....

You might want to get a sun dog avatar. It would be very amusing.

[johnransom]

03-04-2003 @ 10:36 AM
stevencarrwork:
It really is a very simple question, as simple to answer as the question of why atheists are so crabby (Because we ask Christians questions and never get answers)

03-04-2003 @ 10:44 AM
Dee Dee Warren:

Ah the mystery of Crabby Atheist Syndrome (C.A.S.) is solved. A great day on Planet Earth, and it was done the same day as my 14th wedding anniversary...

Of course, he forgot to add the all-important final clause "because we never listen".:teeth:

And congrats DD; you've been married precisely 56 days longer than me.:cheers:

[Hitch]

Somebody said 'Beefeaters' ???

[diana]

03-03-2003 @ 07:19 PM
jpholding:Goading and buttering has other purposes. If you read Art of War, you may see.

The only thing I've seen it used for in debate is distraction and obfuscation, which is the last resort of the desperate.

Perhaps I stand to learn something from you, though. I'll watch your postings so as to ascertain the loftier purposes to which you apply what I had heretofore considered only base appeals to emotion.

d

[jpholding]

Baffling, simply baffling.

Stevie, you would find instructions for using a push broom baffling. I don't think anyone else here has the problem you do, and certainly not people on my side of the fence.

The only thing I've seen it used for in debate is distraction and obfuscation, which is the last resort of the desperate.

As is projectional psychologization. :smile: Fair enough?

I'll watch your postings so as to ascertain the loftier purposes to which you apply what I had heretofore considered only base appeals to emotion.

You might learn. But if you take yourself too seriously, you will have already disqualified yourself from learning anything whatsoever.
:thumb:

[spl_cadet]

03-04-2003 @ 08:36 AM
stevencarrwork:
I quote a certain Christian author, who wrote :- ''I have noted in other contexts that until the time of Bar Kochba, there is no evidence of any person actually coming forth and saying, "I am Messiah" or any person being identified as such, and I have argued that to make such a clear identification of one's "Messianic self" was likely not permitted socially.'

Now we learn that it is NOT Mr. Holding's position that the first person who claimed to be the Christ was Bar Kochba.......


Maybe it's just me, but it seems to me that Holding was saying that there was no evidence of someone saying that before this guy and that coming out and saying it wasn't exactly something all that likely to occur.

[stevencarrwork]

03-05-2003 @ 05:44 AM
spl_cadet:



Maybe it's just me, but it seems to me that Holding was saying that there was no evidence of someone saying that before this guy and that coming out and saying it wasn't exactly something all that likely to occur.

I had written 'Any chance of you telling me who the first person was who claimed to be the Christ, so fulfilling the (rather contrived) prophecy in Matthew 24?

Mr. Holding is convinced it happened about 130 AD, when Bar-Kochba claimed to be the Christ.'

And Mr. Holding (who thinks poetry should be taken literally , eg Die Winterreise 'Drei Sonnen habe ich gesehen',)

stated 'No Stevie, I am NOT holding that position as you state it.'

This makes prophecy fulfillment of Matthew 24 before 130 AD, rather unlikely.

Curiously, NT Wright in one of his latest books (he churns them out at a great rate) 'Matthew for Everyone' skates over this problem , as though it was ticking........ Always nice to see Christians ducking and diving to avoid obvious problems in their pet theories.

[spl_cadet]

03-05-2003 @ 04:16 AM
stevencarrwork:
I had written 'Any chance of you telling me who the first person was who claimed to be the Christ, so fulfilling the (rather contrived) prophecy in Matthew 24?

Mr. Holding is convinced it happened about 130 AD, when Bar-Kochba claimed to be the Christ.'

And Mr. Holding (who thinks poetry should be taken literally , eg Die Winterreise 'Drei Sonnen habe ich gesehen',)

stated 'No Stevie, I am NOT holding that position as you state it.'

This makes prophecy fulfillment of Matthew 24 before 130 AD, rather unlikely.

Unlikely? Yes. Didn't happen? Don't know. Besides, what does it matter when it happened?

[Jaltus]

Curiously, NT Wright in one of his latest books (he churns them out at a great rate) 'Matthew for Everyone' skates over this problem , as though it was ticking........ Always nice to see Christians ducking and diving to avoid obvious problems in their pet theories. Actually, NT Wright is famous for ducking things that do not fit his theories. Entire NT study group meetings have focus on the shortcomings of some of his work (speaking from personal experience here, I was at a "Gospels Study Group" meeting at ETS in 2001, and the time was spent critiquing his work).

Oh, and saying that it is "Christians" who duck is a nice implicit way to say 1) all Christians do it and 2) only Christians do it.

Welcome to the real world, pal, every belief system does it, though not every adherent does it. You may want to get your generalities in order.

[jpholding]

I will watch to see if Stevie ever figures out what I am actually saying. :eww:

[diana]

03-04-2003 @ 12:43 PM
jpholding:
As is projectional psychologization. :smile: Fair enough?

Sure. I'm always open to evidence-supported observations about my behavior. Fair enough? ;)

You might learn. But if you take yourself too seriously, you will have already disqualified yourself from learning anything whatsoever. :thumb:

You sound like a man of experience. Thanks for the advice. I'll do my best to avoid the same pitfalls.

d

[dizzle]

Okay onto Steven’s issue. He had brought forward for consideration….

In Matthew 24:5 Jesus says 'For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, ' and will deceive many.'

And questioned when this had happened. As an orthodox preterist, I firmly hold that all of the word of Christ in Matthew 24, at least up to verse 34, were speaking of first century events and this is no exception.

Jesus is predicting that false messiahs would arise and deceive many people. Both the NT text, and secular history verify this fact. Acts 5:36-37 describe Theudas and Judas, and Acts 8:9-11 describes Simon, all of whom were obviously messianic contenders, especially considering the high messianic expectations of the time.

Before moving onto to other passages, both NT and secular, I know Steven will object that none of these people said, “I am the Christ.” Well first of all, we do not have a tape recorder of their every word so that is an argument from silence. Secondly, their actions, the words that we do know, and the reaction of the people show that they definitely were messianic contenders. Jesus’ prediction does not require a word for word recital… it merely requires that these people overtly make messianic claims.

As an example, I want to examine a passage regarding Christ and His claims….

Matthew 16:13-17 – When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.’”

Nowhere in this passage does Christ ever say the words “I am the Christ,” but He certainly makes that claim by affirming the words of Peter. It would be sheer inanity to claim that Christ did not here claim to be the Christ. It is no different in the cases of our Messianic contenders.

Moving on…. Jerome, Ireneaus, and Eusebius record the words and actions of Simon Magus, and Josephus tells us of Theudas and Disitheus (who specifically stated he was the lawgiver predicted by Moses – a distinct Messianic claim) all of whom validate Jesus’ prediction.

Now as far as my comments that the Apostle John also records both false teachers and false messiahs, I will explain. John uses the phrase “antichrist” to describe false teachers… as you are well aware the Greek term “anti” does not only mean “against” but also “in place of.” John specifically pointed to the existence of these “anti-christs” as evidence that they were in the “last hour,” a specific reference to Christ’s warnings against both false prophets and false messiahs.

[dizzle]

Oh, and saying that it is "Christians" who duck is a nice implicit way to say 1) all Christians do it and 2) only Christians do it.

Welcome to the real world, pal, every belief system does it, though not every adherent does it. You may want to get your generalities in order.

WTG Jaltus!! :rofl:

[stevencarrwork]

03-06-2003 @ 02:37 AM
Dee Dee Warren:

In Matthew 24:5 Jesus says 'For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, ' and will deceive many.'


Jesus is predicting that false messiahs would arise and deceive many people. Both the NT text, and secular history verify this fact. Acts 5:36-37 describe Theudas and Judas,




When were Theudas and Judas active and when did Jesus prophesy about them?

According to Acts and Jospehus, Judas was active in the days of the census , and Acts says that was after Theudas! How can you claim that as a first-century fulfillment?




This was about 30 years before Jesus prophesied, and yet you are claiming these were the people Jesus prophesied about!

Amazing!


03-06-2003 @ 02:37 AM
Dee Dee Warren:


and Acts 8:9-11 describes Simon, all of whom were obviously messianic contenders, especially considering the high messianic expectations of the time.



Acts 8:10 says that people called him something else, other than Messiah. Do you have anybody who has ever said that Simon was the Messiah?

However, Holding has pointed out that Matthew *deliberately* added the word 'Christ' to produce a prophecy of somebody claiming 'I am the Christ'. And Holding has stated with utmost clarity '''I have noted in other contexts that until the time of Bar Kochba, there is no evidence of any person actually coming forth and saying, "I am Messiah" or any person being identified as such, and I have argued that to make such a clear identification of one's "Messianic self" was likely not permitted socially.'

And the best you can come up with is somebody who astounded the Samaritans (!) (not the Jews) and people who were active 30 years before Jesus prophesied.


03-06-2003 @ 02:37 AM
Dee Dee Warren:




Matthew 16:13-17 – When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.’”

Nowhere in this passage does Christ ever say the words “I am the Christ,” but He certainly makes that claim by affirming the words of Peter. It would be sheer inanity to claim that Christ did not here claim to be the Christ. It is no different in the cases of our Messianic contenders.



And where do Theudas, Judas and Simon make Messianic claims?

I won't bother asking where they fulfill the prophecy in Matthew 24 by saying 'I am the Christ', as you will never answer that.


03-06-2003 @ 02:37 AM
Dee Dee Warren:



Moving on…. Jerome, Ireneaus, and Eusebius record the words and actions of Simon Magus, and Josephus tells us of Theudas and Disitheus (who specifically stated he was the lawgiver predicted by Moses – a distinct Messianic claim) all of whom validate Jesus’ prediction.

Now as far as my comments that the Apostle John also records both false teachers and false messiahs, I will explain. John uses the phrase “antichrist” to describe false teachers… as you are well aware the Greek term “anti” does not only mean “against” but also “in place of.” John specifically pointed to the existence of these “anti-christs” as evidence that they were in the “last hour,” a specific reference to Christ’s warnings against both false prophets and false messiahs.

And I hate to quote the Bible again (actually I love quoting the Bible). 1John 2:22 makes quite clear what an antichrist is 'Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist--he denies the Father and the Son.'

Nothing whatever about an antichrist being a false Messiah. John states with the utmost clarity that that an antichrist is simply somebody who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Naturally, there were lots and lots of such people in the first century, and in every century.



As for Dositheus....... You appear to be relying on Holding's 'research'. Big mistake.

http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-46.htm is the first mention in history of him.

And it claims he was the source of the error that led to the Saducees.

'For of Judaism's heretics I am silent-Dositheus the Samaritan, I mean, who was the first who had the hardihood to repudiate the prophets, on the ground that they had not spoken under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. '

As is well known , the Samaritans accepted only the Torah as inspired. Christians claim that Dositheus was the source of this claim that only the Torah was inspired. As Samaritans were around before Jesus prophesied, how can Jesus be prophesying about somebody who was long dead?

[jpholding]

Meanwhile Stevie continues to be unclear on the concept. :duh:

Give him the door, Dee Dee.

[dizzle]

First of all, a correction on my part. You had asked,

When were Theudas and Judas active and when did Jesus prophesy about them?

According to Acts and Jospehus, Judas was active in the days of the census , and Acts says that was after Theudas! How can you claim that as a first-century fulfillment?

You are correct, and my statement as it originally stood is incorrect, so I will revise it here accordingly. I negligently missed a step in my argument, so I thank you for pointing that out. I will now provide that missing step.

The period of time in question was one highly charged with messianic anticipation. This is corroborated by both secular and Biblical texts. There is no doubt that the early Christians were part of a Messianic movement claiming Christ as the Messiah. Gamaliel in Acts 5 in reasoning what to do about these men compared them with other failed messianic movements! Thus you have assisted me in making my point that texts identify messianic contenders by other means than a signed and dated transcript of them saying, “I am the Messiah.” While Theudas and Judas of Acts were not the men prophesied by Christ (you are correct) they are examples of Messianic contenders of the time period and are usable as controls for other proposed contenders.

However, there was a different Theudas mentioned by Josephus (dating this Theudas at approximately 44AD) who deceived a great many people into believing that he could divide the Jordan River (shades of Moses – i.e. messianic deliverance motif) for their safe passage.

Additionally I would refer you to Acts 21:38 which references an Egyptian who deceived 4000 thousand (predominantly Jews – who were expecting a messianic deliverer) into following him into the wilderness and perished. Eusebius records that this man had 30,000 followers at one point before fleeing.

Now onto Simon who did appear after Christ’s words…

Acts 8:10 says that people called him something else, other than Messiah. Do you have anybody who has ever said that Simon was the Messiah?

I have already dealt with this issue. Jesus’ prediction does not require that, and what we do have identifies Simon as a messianic contender in no uncertain terms. His claims to be the “great power of God” is a distinct messianic claim. Your objection that he astounded the Samaritans is of no import. Jesus did not require that only full-blooded Jews be led astray, only that many be led astray. The Samaritans were half-Jews and had high Messianic expectations as evidenced by the comments of the women whom Jesus met at the well in John Chapter 4.

And where do Theudas, Judas and Simon make Messianic claims?

Asked and answered. If you deal with the answers, I will respond further.

And I hate to quote the Bible again (actually I love quoting the Bible). 1John 2:22 makes quite clear what an antichrist is 'Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist--he denies the Father and the Son.'

Nothing whatever about an antichrist being a false Messiah. John states with the utmost clarity that that an antichrist is simply somebody who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Naturally, there were lots and lots of such people in the first century, and in every century.

That would be funny if you were not serious… let me see if I can come up with an illustration. Okay, in its advertising campaign 7-UP dubbed itself the “unCola.” In so doing, it was making a statement about itself in comparison to colas just by the very title chosen. A statement is made about 7-Up by that mere designation. I demonstrated the same thing by John’s use of the term “antichrist” or to transliterate it into our conversation “anti-messiah.” John could have simply called them false teachers, false prophets, etc. He chose to use a term which carried with it that they were setting themselves up as against and in place of Christ. This is not that difficult of a concept, I am surprised it eluded you.

As far as 1 John 2:22, you have proven my point. You have a habit of doing that. John says, “Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ. He is antichrist who denies the father and the son.” That does not exclude messianic contenders, for certainly an alternate messiah would have to claim that Jesus was not the Messiah. Additionally, I am not claiming that antichrist narrowly defines one group of people, i.e. messianic contenders, but includes a wide range of falsehoods by which John, referencing Jesus’ words (an allusion you conveniently did not deal with) cites as proof that they were in the “last hour.” John himself is making the connection for us, and being much closer in time to the events and the prediction is in a much better position than you or I, not that I expect you to agree with that obvious statement.

As for Dositheus....... You appear to be relying on Holding's 'research'. Big mistake.

You assume too much. I did not use any of Holding’s material in my response to you. Let me give you some information so you don’t make a hind-end roast of yourself. I am not a person who has come to this position (i.e. preterism) because I read Holding’s material. I was a committed preterist way before Holding, and in fact, I like to humor myself in thinking that I was instrumental in giving him the push to commit to that direction himself.

So back to Dositheus…

http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-46.htm is the first mention in history of him. And it claims he was the source of the error that led to the Sadducees.

'For of Judaism's heretics I am silent-Dositheus the Samaritan, I mean, who was the first who had the hardihood to repudiate the prophets, on the ground that they had not spoken under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. '

You may be correct, so until I research that further, I will withdraw his name… but that very chapter in Tertullian is very interesting and damaging to you as I will cite:

To those I betake myself who have chosen to make the gospel the starting-point of their heresies. Of these the first of all is Simon Magus, who in the Acts of the Apostles earned a condign and just sentence from the Apostle Peter. He had the hardihood to call himself the Supreme Virtue, that is, the Supreme God; and moreover, (to assert) that the universe had been originated by his angels; that he had descended in quest of an erring daemon, which was Wisdom; that, in a phantasmal semblance of God, he had not suffered among the Jews, but was as if he had suffered. After him Menander, his disciple (likewise a magician), saying the same as Simon. Whatever Simon had affirmed himself to be, this did Menander equally affirm himself to be, asserting that none could possibly have salvation without being baptized in his name.

A more apt description of messianic imposters could not be found.

[stevencarrwork]

03-06-2003 @ 08:47 AM
stevencarrwork:



As for Dositheus....... You appear to be relying on Holding's 'research'. Big mistake.

http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-46.htm is the first mention in history of him.

And it claims he was the source of the error that led to the Saducees.

'For of Judaism's heretics I am silent-Dositheus the Samaritan, I mean, who was the first who had the hardihood to repudiate the prophets, on the ground that they had not spoken under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. '


I should point out that Christians writing 200 years after the alleged events often made things up, so Dee Dee should not rely on this Christian claim that Dositheus was before the Saducees, but attempt herself to find some writings or claims by Dositheus.

Holding made no attempt to do so. Not surprisingly, as there is virtually no evidence when Dositheus lived. This lack of evidence did not stop Holding claiming Dositheus was a Messianic candidate between 30 AD and 70 AD.


Heck, even the fact that Judas was active around the time Jesus was born did not stop Holding claiming him to support Holding's claims of prophecy fulfillment at 70 AD!

[dizzle]

Dear Steven:

You are talking with me at this point and not with Holding. I told you that I did not refer to his work in my response, so your corndog comments above are useless. If you are not interested in an answer to your question but merely a platform to settle a personal score with Holding, I am not interested. I am interested n the answer to the question. I do not need Dositheus for my response, and if you read carefully, I withdrew him from consideration.

No one is perfect. I conceded several errors or missed steps. I am sure if Holding made an error it will be corrected or clarified. The last time I checked, he only claimed inerrancy for the Bible, not for himself.

[stevencarrwork]

It is best to remind Dee Dee Warren of what Jesus prophesied in Matthew 24:4-5 'Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many.'

She is claiming that this statement 'For many will come in my name, claiming 'I am the Christ' was fulfilled, but she has no examples of anybody claiming 'I am the Christ', before 130 AD.

All Dee Dee Warren has shown (especially by her choosing examples before Jesus was born), is that there were always deceivers, and false teachers, people who denied Jesus was the Christ, and probably always will be.

Such a generality was hardly much of a prophecy then by Jesus was it?

Of course, there is a *specific* prophecy in Matthew 24:5, which is why she is doing her utmost to ignore it.

03-06-2003 @ 12:51 PM
Dee Dee Warren: While Theudas and Judas of Acts were not the men prophesied by Christ (you are correct) they are examples of Messianic contenders of the time period and are usable as controls for other proposed contenders.





In other words, you gave them as examples of people prophesied by Christ, and one post later, you had to withdraw.



03-06-2003 @ 12:51 PM

However, there [I]was a different Theudas mentioned by Josephus (dating this Theudas at approximately 44AD) who deceived a great many people into believing that he could divide the Jordan River (shades of Moses – i.e. messianic deliverance motif) for their safe passage.



A lot of people would say that Acts simply messed up, and that there were not two Theudas's. Certainly you can find no secular reference to back up your claim that there were two Theudas's who decieved people.

Does Josephus , who you are using as a source, ever state that anybody claimed this Theudas (the one Acts has no knowledge of) was a Messianic claimant?

I still await with bated breath your naming somebody who fufillied the prophecy in Matthew 24 of saying 'I am the Christ'.






Additionally I would refer you to Acts 21:38 which references an Egyptian who deceived 4000 thousand (predominantly Jews – who were expecting a messianic deliverer) into following him into the wilderness and perished. Eusebius records that this man had 30,000 followers at one point before fleeing.



Still no pretense on your part that anybody ever said this unkown Egyptian was a Messiah. And you do not even dare to say he fulfilled the prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 24 that people will say 'I am the Christ'.





Now onto Simon who did appear after ChristÂ’s wordsÂ…



I have already dealt with this issue. Jesus’ prediction does not require that, and what we do have identifies Simon as a messianic contender in no uncertain terms. His claims to be the “great power of God” is a distinct messianic claim.



As far as 1 John 2:22, you have proven my point. You have a habit of doing that. John says, “Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ. He is antichrist who denies the father and the son.”



Gosh, 1 John 2:22 states as clearly as possible what he regarded as an anti-Christ , (people who deny that Jesus was the Christ) and you are claiming that he is referring to other groups of people. (people who say that they are the Christ)

In fact 1 John 2:22 says the anti-Christs deny the Father. And you claim that he is referring to people who claim that they have been sent by the Father.

You are simply a Bible-denier. There is nothing in John's Epistles which claims that there are false Messiahs. He claims that there are people (ex-Christians, often) who deny that Jesus was the Christ.

[i]03-06-2003 @ 12:51 PM


A more apt description of messianic imposters could not be found.


If you can back up that these claims were Messianic claims, I would be grateful. For example, where in the Old Testament is it claimed that the Messiah created the world through his angels?

Even in the passage you give Tertullian does not mention the word Messiah, and does not state Simon claimed to be a Messiah.

Even Acts does not do that!

[jpholding]

Stevie still seems to be searching for that clue. I'll wait. :juggle:

[dizzle]

Don't hold your breath JP. But I find this amusing.. so I have yet more to say. I find it interesting how he evaded my main point and skated on by.

[stevencarrwork]

03-07-2003 @ 12:47 PM
Dee Dee Warren:

Don't hold your breath JP. But I find this amusing.. so I have yet more to say. I find it interesting how he evaded my main point and skated on by.

Your main point being that nobody fulfilled the prophecy in Matthew 24:5 and said 'I am the Christ'. As nobody fulfilled the prophecy, you have taken it upon yourself to deny that the Bible says what Matthew wrote.

Or is your main point that these prophecies about messianic candidates were fulfilled during 30-70 AD, and you gave as confirmation messianic candidates before Jesus was born and, Holding gave a messianic candidate in 130 AD.

If there were messianic candidates before 30 AD, messianic candidates after 70 AD, and even when Jesus spoke there were great expectations of a Messiah coming, then it is hardly a prophecy to say that there will be Messianic candidates (even if you are struggling to name people in the time period 30 AD- 70 AD).

And why are you struggling to name people in the time period 30 AD - 70 AD?

I will let Mr. Holding explain to you :-

http://www.tektonics.org/olivet01.html
'I have noted in other contexts that until the time of Bar Kochba, there is no evidence of any person actually coming forth and saying, "I am Messiah" or any person being identified as such, and I have argued that to make such a clear identification of one's "Messianic self" was likely not permitted socially.'

Notice the phrase 'or any person being identified as such'. How many times does Mr. Holding have to explain to you that there is no evidence of any person being identified as a Messiah before Bar Kochba?

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_03_01.html

'We have people who took some putative military action against Rome, and failed miserably, but no claimants or claims at all -- one suggests that they might well have made a claim to be Messiah had their little schemes succeeded, but it remains that Carrier's response offers no response at all.'

Mr. Holding is quite clear that these miserable failures never even got far enough to make messianic claims. Mr. Holding writes with utmost clarity 'no claimants or claims at all'.

[dizzle]

Wow, and you missed it again. And amazing wanted to show off how utterly you missed it. I will be back later...

[dizzle]

Dear Steven:

You have an uncanny ability to completely miss the point and spin a nice yarn sweater at the same time.

Your main point being that nobody fulfilled the prophecy in Matthew 24:5 and said 'I am the Christ'.

Now there are only a few options for what is going on here…. Either you are just too thick to understand my point, or you are purposefully misrepresenting my point. Your choice. My main point has always been that the prophecy was absolutely fulfilled and that it did not require anyone to mouth the exact words “I am the Christ” but did require persons to come forward who were messianic contenders making messianic claims. It is irrelevant if they ever used those exact words, that is not the point that Christ was communicating. To demonstrate this once again somewhat using the same example I have already used…. let’s pretend that a guy (we’ll call him Roger) appeared on the scene and had this similar conversation that Jesus had with Peter (we’ll call him Harry)…

Roger: Harry who do other people say that I am?

Harry: Well some say that you are John the Baptist, some say Elijah, or one of the prophets.

Roger: But who do you say that I am?

Harry: You are the Messiah.

Roger: Bingo!

Now let’s say all of this happened after Jesus’ prediction and death. According to Steven, Roger would not qualify because he did not mouth the words “I am the Messiah!” and thus cannot have claimed to be the Messiah!! How patently absurd and even beyond banal anachronism since we would not even in today’s vernacular hyper-literalize to that extent. Steven is infusing mojo magic into an exact wording when all that is being communicated is that people will come along with messianic claims. Did that happen? Absolutely.

Or is your main point that these prophecies about messianic candidates were fulfilled during 30-70 AD, and you gave as confirmation messianic candidates before Jesus was born and, Holding gave a messianic candidate in 130 AD.

Bzzt, and again either dishonest or dim, your choice.

If there were messianic candidates before 30 AD, messianic candidates after 70 AD, and even when Jesus spoke there were great expectations of a Messiah coming, then it is hardly a prophecy to say that there will be Messianic candidates (even if you are struggling to name people in the time period 30 AD- 70 AD).

And I never claimed that it was a prophecy that by itself was a fantastic confirmation of the Bible. In fact, I am not too sure I would dub it a true “prophecy” at all, but a warning and reminder. Yes, it is technically a prophecy in that it speaks of things yet to happen, and it is possible that those things not happen, but I never heralded this as one of the great prophecies of the Bible any more than me stating that you will utterly fail to adequately deal with any of my points in your next post would be a phenomenal demonstration of my seer status. That is almost a given, though it is possible you may get hit with a sudden case of coherent understanding.

And why are you struggling to name people in the time period 30 AD - 70 AD?

First of all I didn’t struggle, I named some. Second of all, I would remind you that we do not have records of any single person or event of the first century… the picture is far from complete. For instance, if perchance Josephus never authored his Wars of the Jews I would not have the benefit today of such fantastic evidence of the remarkable fulfillment of Christ’s Olivet Discourse, but that would not change the fact that it did indeed happen. Your argument is not only from silence, but against common sense as you demonstrated yourself by pointing out that it was almost a given that there would have been messianic contenders considering the highly charged messianic expectations of the first century Jews. You need to stop defeating yourself like that for it spoils all my fun.

As far as your quotations of Holding…

**snip**

You are dealing with me. Holding can defend his own work and point of view. I already informed you that I did not utilize his work whatsoever in formulating my response to you, and that I am a preterist defender in my own right. Deal with that and stop trying to use me to settle a score with Holding. I don’t play those silly games.

Now that the groundwork of what the point actually is laid… let’s look at some of Steven’s attempts…

In other words, you gave them as examples of people prophesied by Christ, and one post later, you had to withdraw.
Sigh… nice snip job where you thought that no one would notice that you whistled past the point…. That’s okay, I am woman, I’m don’t mind repeating myself.

>>>>You are correct, and my statement as it originally stood is incorrect, so I will revise it here accordingly. I negligently missed a step in my argument, so I thank you for pointing that out. I will now provide that missing step.

The period of time in question was one highly charged with messianic anticipation. This is corroborated by both secular and Biblical texts. There is no doubt that the early Christians were part of a Messianic movement claiming Christ as the Messiah. Gamaliel in Acts 5 in reasoning what to do about these men compared them with other failed messianic movements! Thus you have assisted me in making my point that texts identify messianic contenders by other means than a signed and dated transcript of them saying, “I am the Messiah.” While Theudas and Judas of Acts were not the men prophesied by Christ (you are correct) they are examples of Messianic contenders of the time period and are usable as controls for other proposed contenders.>>>>

This is where you need to do something called “dealing with it” Steven.

A lot of people would say that Acts simply messed up, and that there were not two Theudas's. Certainly you can find no secular reference to back up your claim that there were two Theudas's who deceived people.

LOL!! You’re not fast enough Steven, everyone still followed what shell the ball was hidden under. It is irrelevant at this point whether a lot of people would say that Acts simply messed up (and to mess up a really contemporary event by 50 or so years is pretty bad, but not for those dumber than a doorknob ancients) because we are dealing with one statement by Jesus and if that statement was true or not. So my example of Theudas (a common name despite the fact that I would not be surprised if you faulted them for not liking our popular names) stands, which I will repeat (because I am a woman and I don’t mind)….

>>> However, there was a different Theudas mentioned by Josephus (dating this Theudas at approximately 44AD) who deceived a great many people into believing that he could divide the Jordan River (shades of Moses – i.e. messianic deliverance motif) for their safe passage.>>

Does Josephus , who you are using as a source, ever state that anybody claimed this Theudas (the one Acts has no knowledge of) was a Messianic claimant?

Yes if you can think outside of a one inch cube.

Still no pretense on your part that anybody ever said this unknown Egyptian was a Messiah. And you do not even dare to say he fulfilled the prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 24 that people will say 'I am the Christ'.

Ditto to what has already been said.

And until you deal with John’s close allusion to Christ’s words and warning, and the etymology of the word choice for his label of such people, there is no further commentary required on the epistles of John….. but this one thing is too funny to pass up….

In fact 1 John 2:22 says the anti-Christs deny the Father. And you claim that he is referring to people who claim that they have been sent by the Father.

LOL… you can’t be serious? Do you really believe that John was claiming that these anti-christs had to be atheists or pagans? You cannot possibly be so one-dimensional that you cannot understand that in denying Christ they are denying the Fahter, no matter what they say they affirm? :rofl: Make that a sugar cube.

If you can back up that these claims were Messianic claims, I would be grateful. For example, where in the Old Testament is it claimed that the Messiah created the world through his angels?

Well if I can prove that the OT is compatible with a belief in the deity of the Messiah, and that there is only one God, than that would do it. But let’s say I can’t (which I can – but is way beyond the scope of this thread)… are you suggesting that false messiahs have to completely faithful to the OT? All I need to prove is that there was certain messianic expectations of a “godman” messianic figure, and then these statements must certainly qualify. I am sorry you are sore that you gave me such a good quote.

On the “godman”…

Even the Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner (who attempts to minimize 'traditional' notions of the messiah) readily ADMITS that the messianic expectations of pre-Mishnahhic Jewry WERE those of an exalted super-human figure! Neusner believes that the compilers of the Mishnah were attempting to resolve the same issues, but in a different way. In describing this attempt, Neusner gives a telling description of what the 'older' traditions were (in "Mishnah and Messiah", JTM:275): "We focus upon how the system laid out in the Mishnah takes up and disposes of those critical issues of teleology worked out through messianic eschatology in other, earlier versions of Judaism (emphasis mine). These earlier systems resorted to the myth of the Messiah as savior and redeemer of Israel, a supernatural figure engaged in political-historical tasks as king of the Jews, even a God-man(emphasis mine) facing the crucial historical questions of Israel's life and resolving them: the Christ as king of the world, of the ages, of death itself."
(http://www.christian-thinktank.com/messiah.html)

And here again is that extraordinarily good quote you gave me….

“To those I betake myself who have chosen to make the gospel the starting-point of their heresies. Of these the first of all is Simon Magus, who in the Acts of the Apostles earned a condign and just sentence from the Apostle Peter. He had the hardihood to call himself the Supreme Virtue, that is, the Supreme God; and moreover, (to assert) that the universe had been originated by his angels; that he had descended in quest of an erring daemon, which was Wisdom; that, in a phantasmal semblance of God, he had not suffered among the Jews, but was as if he had suffered. After him Menander, his disciple (likewise a magician), saying the same as Simon. Whatever Simon had affirmed himself to be, this did Menander equally affirm himself to be, asserting that none could possibly have salvation without being baptized in his name.” http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-46.htm

And again, wow! A more fitting detail of messianic contenders could hardly be found.

And now for my additional research… and hmm, you are not going to like this one….

Hippolytus tells us in “The Consummation of the World,” that “there arose some, saying I am Christ [oops!], as Simon Magus [oops!], and the rest whose names I have not time to reckon up.” Josephus in “Wars of the Jews” (2:13:5) mentions numerous revolutionaries (typical messianic figures of the day) claiming divine inspiration and drawing followers unto themselves and fomenting upheavals.. and in line with the portents and warnings of Matthew 24.

[stevencarrwork]

03-08-2003 @ 04:44 AM
Dee Dee Warren:

The period of time in question was one highly charged with messianic anticipation. This is corroborated by both secular and Biblical texts. There is no doubt that the early Christians were part of a Messianic movement claiming Christ as the Messiah. Gamaliel in Acts 5 in reasoning what to do about these men compared them with other failed messianic movements! Thus you have assisted me in making my point that texts identify messianic contenders by other means than a signed and dated transcript of them saying, “I am the Messiah.” While Theudas and Judas of Acts were not the men prophesied by Christ (you are correct) they are examples of Messianic contenders of the time period and are usable as controls for other proposed contenders.>>>>


And now for my additional researchÂ… and hmm, you are not going to like this oneÂ….

Hippolytus tells us in “The Consummation of the World,” that “there arose some, saying I am Christ [oops!], as Simon Magus [oops!], and the rest whose names I have not time to reckon up.”

Just a couple of points. You yourself claim that there were Messianic contenders before, during and after 70 AD, yet you claim that the prophecy was fulfilled during 30 AD-70 AD

Secondly you have never dealt with and cannot deal with why Matthew wrote what he did in Matthew 24:5. He wrote that people would say 'I am the Christ'. He did that for a reason, and you have failed to even start to tell us what that reason was, despite your repetition of the claim that there is no record of anybody saying 'I am the Christ'.

You claim Christians 150 year later (eg Hippolytus) say the prophecy was fulfilled. Yawn, we know Christians say prophecy has been fulfilled, simply repeating Christian claims of prophecy fulfillment is not evidence of Christian claims of prophecy fulillment.


But even your claim that Christians later said the prophecy was fulfilled demonstrates the shallowness of your research.

Hipploytus never wrote a work called 'The Consummation of the World'.

Where did you get your quote from?

http://www.catholicfirst.com/TheFaith/ChurchFathers/Volume05/Hippolytus11.htm is where it might be
Notice the big warning letters 'CONTAINING DUBIOUS AND SPURIOUS PIECES'


http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-20.htm
also says the piece is dubious and spurious

Such is your research, dubious and spurious pieces, sheer forgeries and even these do no more than repeat Christian claims of prophecy fulfillment. The work gives no evidence that Simon Magus ever said such a thing.

I can imagine your laughter if Muslims tried to prove prophecy fulfillment in the Koran by producing dubious and spurious Muslim forgeries, written 150 years after the supposed prophecy fulfillment, claiming , on no evidence at all, that the prophecy was fulfilled.

Do you have anything other than dubious Christian forgeries that Simon Magus ever said 'I am the Christ'?

[jpholding]

Typical Stevie blatter.

1) Still doesn't get it.

2) Zero in on one or two technical issues where he thinks you goofed, ignore the rest.

Reminds me of a little pooch I own and his chew toy. Here, boy!
Only my little one is smarter.
:bonk:

Keep it going, Dee Dee.

[dizzle]

And Steven.. you have yet to deal with any of the main points.. I appreciate your comments on the Hippolytus piece, and I will look into it. My main point has remain completely untouched by you.... I am not surprised.

[dizzle]

03-08-2003 @ 08:15 AM
jpholding:

Typical Stevie blatter.

1) Still doesn't get it.

Exactly... has not dealt with the main thrust AT ALL.


2) Zero in on one or two technical issues where he thinks you goofed, ignore the rest.


And this part though I appreciate. I have never put pen to proverbial paper on this one before, so if some of the technical detials are wrong, I value this opportunity to smooth them out... I readily concede when I have made a goof, and immediately correct it. BUT he has completely skipped over the majority of the point and has seized on sentences that could be completely ommitted. That is the sign of the someone on the losing end of an argument......

My last response took the entire 12K character limit. Steven took one MINOR point out of the last paragraph and that is all he commented on..... I find that kind of strange.

Still waiting Steven for you to do some dealing with it....

[jpholding]

Meanwhile on Errancy, Stevie has written:

In the Religion 101 forum at http://www.theologyweb.com/ Dee Dee Warren
continues to get a pasting in the Prophecy Fulfillment thread.

She is now reduced to quoting what even Christians say are dubious, spurious pieces.

Pfft, hack! Like he just gave the whole and entirety of all you said! Stevie, to put it bluntly you are a manifest liar by omission, a sick and twisted little mind-pervert, and I'm challenging you to get your patoot kicked in the Gym BY ME after you get done with Pate and after I get done with Alward, Gerkin, and Powell. People wonder why I turn satire full force on you Till-twits, and there is no better example than this.

How are the sun dogs? :rofl:

[stevencarrwork]

03-08-2003 @ 01:29 PM
jpholding:

Meanwhile on Errancy, Stevie has written:

In the Religion 101 forum at http://www.theologyweb.com/ Dee Dee Warren
continues to get a pasting in the Prophecy Fulfillment thread.

She is now reduced to quoting what even Christians say are dubious, spurious pieces.

Pfft, hack! Like he just gave the whole and entirety of all you said! Stevie, to put it bluntly you are a manifest liar by omission, a sick and twisted little mind-pervert, and I'm challenging you to get your patoot kicked in the Gym BY ME after you get done with Pate and after I get done with Alward, Gerkin, and Powell. People wonder why I turn satire full force on you Till-twits, and there is no better example than this.

How are the sun dogs? :rofl:

I forgot to mention in my email that Dee Dee was also reduced to chopping out quotes from you yourself which destroyed her case , you know, the ones which claim that there were only miserables failures who never got as far as making Messianic claims, and your statement that until 130 AD, when it comes to Messianic candidates, there is no evidence of 'any person being identified as such.'

Still, a debate with Mr. Holding might be nice, especially as I know he has no objection to people using dubious, spurious works to make points. Why, Dee Dee uses spurious, dubious works and Mr. Holding supports her to the hilt (although she cuts out every quote by him in her responses.

[dizzle]

:rofl: Still waiting for you to deal with the main point... but here is a dare to you Steven... instead of merely mouthing off over at Errancy... please invite them to come and look for themselves... and since there are a vocal few who seem to find navigating this site with its very common and user-friendly Vbulletin software, you have better provide a very specific link.

[jpholding]

I forgot to mention

You didn't forget to mention Jack, little man. If anything you forgot to mention how you've failed to be clear on the concept for days on end. Such are your pedantic and deluded victories.

Still, a debate with Mr. Holding might be nice,

Put it on your calendar right after your appointment to show those stupid ancients how to build a dam, and before your appointment to tell those sun dog people how deluded they are. :rofl:

[dizzle]

And I will even help you out... here is the link... Steven

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=26177#post26177

I do expect you will be backing up your mouth with the evidence?? Hmmm???

And I would love to preserve this embarassing display of yours for posterity and get a wider audience. Would you like to take up this topic in the Gym? I don't mind trouncing you several times on it.

[stevencarrwork]

Here is part of an email Dee Dee Warren asked to be forwarded to the errancy list, explaining the moderation policy she applies

DEE DEE
3. We recognize that the nature of spirited debate
may include the use of satire, humor, and strong statements of position; however, gratuitous name-calling, bullying, stalking, or outright rudeness will not be tolerated.


-----------------------------------------
One wonders if Mr. Holding's last but one post falls under the category of outright rudeness.

[jpholding]

One wonders if Mr. Holding's last but one post falls under the category of outright rudeness.

More of Stevie's favorite tactic: When you're getting your patoot kicked, change the subject.

Funny how it took this long for it to occur to him.

[dizzle]

I would actually say it falls under the category of satire and humor and in line with the direction/tone/context of this thread.


I will be responding further to your ducking of my points later this afternoon. And I notice you didn't answer my challenge to you to take this into the Gym.. I do not want to respond further here if you are going to agree to allow me to thrash you in front of a wider audience so, I guess I will wait to hear from you on that point.

[Rusty T]

Hey, I'm staying out of this one, but I did find it interesting that Dee Dee considers what Holding just posted to be satire.

a manifest liar by omission, a sick and twisted little mind-pervert,

And yet your rules state:
however, gratuitous name-calling, bullying, stalking, or outright rudeness will not be tolerated.

Is your lack of perspective hindered by your head being up Holding's nether regions?

rusty

[dizzle]

Did you notice the word "gratiutous"? And please note that Steven complained about one specific post, and that is not the post that he complained out.

[Rusty T]

Dee Dee, as moderator, are you going to give Holding a warning for such invective? Do you know the meaning of gratuitous? Here's some help:
not called for by the circumstances

Please tell me how Holding's calling Carr a manifest liar by omission, a sick and twisted little mind-pervert,

is called for?

Thanks for the explanation.

[AVmetro]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact 1 John 2:22 says the anti-Christs deny the Father. And you claim that he is referring to people who claim that they have been sent by the Father.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



LOL… you can’t be serious? Do you really believe that John was claiming that these anti-christs had to be atheists or pagans? You cannot possibly be so one-dimensional that you cannot understand that in denying Christ they are denying the Fahter, no matter what they say they affirm? Make that a sugar cube.

Evangelion? :huh:

[dizzle]

Dear Tizzi:

If you read JP's comments in context I believe they are self-explantory as being in reference to slanted and inaccurate comment made by Carr in the Errancy list.

However, I will affirm that "pervert" can be taken in an inappropriate way and ask that JP refrain from such characterizations as inappropriate in this discussion. As far as "sick" and "twisted" I will also agree that without further detail, those are overly strong terms for the comment of Carr's in question and JP would have to back up such a characterization with further detail.

The rest of his comments you referenced fall within the Rules parameters... and I quote for you the rest of the rule...

If a strong and potentially inflammatory characterization is used, it must be backed up as to the truth of the matter.

Steven left out a great deal of what actually went on in this debate, and thus JP has backed up his charge of "liar by omission."

If you have any further complaints, I request that you take them up in the Dean's Office so as not to hijack this thread.

[Rusty T]

Thank you for the warning to JPHolding (did you send him a private message yet asking him to refrain from unwarranted invective?)

However I would like to point out that Holding neglected to mention that Carr did provide a link to this thread in his postings to Errancy. That is how I found it. So to insinuate that Carr was "hiding" something by not linking . . . well it's just downright ironic, isn't it.

Rusty

[dizzle]

Dear Rusty:

To be frank, it is not your concern whether or not I sent a PM to any other member regarding the rules of this Forum. I sent a PM to you as a courtesy to send you the text of your deleted post. A comment in the thread about any comments made in the thread is sufficient. I am glad that my comments satisfied your request.

And JP can defend himself on his charge against Carr.

[AVmetro]

Ad hominem attacks disguised as feigned "values." Gotta love 'em :smile:

[Rusty T]

Ad hominem attacks disguised as feigned "values."

are you accusing me of ad hominem attacks?

And Dee, will you please make sure that you stop implying that Steve Carr didn't link in Errancy to this thread. Here is the content of his posting on 3/6/2003


Hope this link works

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=1445

If not it is in Prophecy Fulfillment When, in Religion 101 at
http://www.theologyweb.com/ where Dee Dee Warren is getting a pasting trying
to use Holding's arguments to defend preterism. Holding is, of course, not
saying anything substantive.

Thanks,

rusty

[AVmetro]

***
Your avatar is offensive and inappropriate for this forum. It has been removed by the moderator.
*** -AVmetro

[AVmetro]

Thank you for the warning to JPHolding (did you send him a private message yet asking him to refrain from unwarranted invective?)

I can almost hear the cry of "Belt him harder! No, I don't think he's learned his lesson!" :no: This is precisely what I meant...

[Rusty T]

AVmetro
I can almost hear the cry of "Belt him harder! No, I don't think he's learned his lesson!" This is precisely what I meant...

And this is an ad hominem attack? Can you EXPLAIN what you meant, rather than restating it and without putting words in my mouth?

I was just concerned that Dee Dee holds Holding to the rules.

rusty

[Rusty T]

In this thread you stated:

Still waiting for you to deal with the main point... but here is a dare to you Steven... instead of merely mouthing off over at Errancy... please invite them to come and look for themselves... and since there are a vocal few who seem to find navigating this site with its very common and user-friendly Vbulletin software, you have better provide a very specific link.

And I posted above the following text of a 3/6/03 message to II_errancy by Steve Carr:
Hope this link works

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sh...p?threadid=1445

If not it is in Prophecy Fulfillment When, in Religion 101 at
http://www.theologyweb.com/ where Dee Dee Warren is getting a pasting trying
to use Holding's arguments to defend preterism. Holding is, of course, not
saying anything substantive.

Will you, Dee Dee, please make sure you refrain from stating that Carr did not link to this thread?

Rusty

[dizzle]

Dear Rusty:

I was not aware of the portion with the very specific link to this thread as I am not a member of Errancy. I stand corrected and thank Steven for that link so that people can see for themselves his dodging of my main point.

Now perhaps Steven will answer whether or not he would like to take this to the Gym or not. I am not posting my further response until I hear from him.

[AVmetro]

I was just concerned that Dee Dee holds Holding to the rules.


You are little *too* concerned that Dee Dee hold JP to the rules. However this is evidently only a feigned concern as a look at your previous avatar will demonstrate your true regard for Theology Web's guidlines :shifty:.

[dizzle]

But dear Rusty, let me educate you on something since you are so quick to defend Carr... let me ask you, do you think this is an accurate and truthful statement?

Dee Dee Warren is getting a pasting trying
to use Holding's arguments to defend preterism.

Now... think really carefully before you answer. You are kind of in a pickle because you challenged me to be fair in my assessments of Holding's comments which you have conceded that I have, and in fact have thanked me for it... but now dear Tizzi... how truthful was Carr here? Hmmmm?????

[Rusty T]

Don't you hate it when people read your mind:
However this is evidently only a feigned concern

You do not know whether or not my concern was feigned or not. My previous avatar has NOTHING to do with my concern on THIS topic. However, I did not know my avatar was against the rules, and once it was deleted, I did not complain - I simply changed it.

rusty

[Rusty T]

let me educate you on something since you are so quick to defend Carr

Dee, Carr's comments were his opinion of the outcome of the arguments presented in this thread. Your opinion is that you were trouncing him. Neither is "wrong". I was not defending Carr's position, neither Holding's, nor yours.

Whether or not he was truthful depends upon his personal assessment of the success of his arguments. Obviously he thinks he is winning - as you do. This is no comparison to Holdings belittling statements. Do you think they are are comparable?

rusty

[dizzle]

Dear Rusty:

Did you read the complete statement? I was not asking you about the truthfulness of his opinion that he was "pasting" me. No matter how deluded (and belittling - ouch! that double standard will get you every time) that may be, that is a subjective opinion. I was referring to his statement that I was using Holding's arguments. Do you think he is being accurate and truthful there? Think very, very carefully before you answer.

[Rusty T]

Thanks for clarifying your question. I am not familiar enough with Holding's arguments or your supposed use of them to say that this is a truthful statement.

However, it is puzzling that you are saying that Carr's assessment that he was "pasting" you is comparable to Holding's invective, personally demeaning statements to Carr. Carr was not belittling you when he said he was "pasting" you, no more than you were him when you claimed to be trouncing him. Unless you admit now that you intended to belittle him as a person - and not his arguments.

Rusty

[dizzle]

Dear Rusty:

I am not going to debate Holding's comments to Carr with you. You brougth up a few that concerned you, I dealt with them to your satisfaction. Move on.

Second, if I can prove that Carr is dead wrong and knows it in that statement, will you challenge him on his inaccurate statement?

[AVmetro]

You do not know whether or not my concern was feigned or not.

And I have good reason to believe it was the former.

My previous avatar has NOTHING to do with my concern on THIS topic. However, I did not know my avatar was against the rules, and once it was deleted, I did not complain - I simply changed it.

I believe your concern has to do with consistent enforcement of rules. One would think that if you are going to criticize our board and our methods of being consistent, then you should at least read the rules and guidelines before doing so. Otherwise you come out looking like a hypocrite as has already occured once.

Secondly, I believe *common sense* in and of itself should have been reason enough not to display an avatar *of that nature* on a *Christian board*. It doesn't take a mind-reader to understand your motives there :cir:.

[dizzle]

AVMetro... once again, your precision in nailing the point is appreciated.

[stevencarrwork]

03-08-2003 @ 08:11 PM
Dee Dee Warren:

I was referring to his statement that I was using Holding's arguments. Do you think he is being accurate and truthful there? Think very, very carefully before you answer.

He may need some help thinking.

Here are Holding's arguments in
http://www.tektonics.org/olivet01.html

'Theudas and Judas are two examples (Acts 5:36-37), as perhaps was the Egyptian Paul was mistaken for; Simon Magus has been cited as one who claimed to be God, in a non-Jewish Messianic context; a Samaritan named Dositheus claimed to be the lawgiver prophesied of by Moses'

and here are Dee Dee's arguments (edited for brevity, but the original is on page 3 of this thread)

'Jesus is predicting that false messiahs would arise and deceive many people. Both the NT text, and secular history verify this fact. Acts 5:36-37 describe Theudas and Judas, and Acts 8:9-11 describes Simon, all of whom were obviously messianic contenders, especially considering the high messianic expectations of the time.

.......

Moving on. Jerome, Ireneaus, and Eusebius record the words and actions of Simon Magus, and Josephus tells us of Theudas and Disitheus (who specifically stated he was the lawgiver predicted by Moses .....'

End of my quoting Dee Dee's arguments

Holding mentioned Theudas and Judas. Dee Dee claimed that these were the false Messiahs who would arise.

Holding mentioned Simon. Dee Dee mentioned Simon.

Holding mentioned Dositheus and said he was the law giver prophesied by Moses.

Dee Dee mentioned Dositheus and said he was the law giver prophesied by Moses.

So the same people in the very same order, and sometimes very similar wording.

The exception is the Egyptian mentioned by Holding, and lo and behold, Dee Dee brought him up in a later thread.

So Dee Dee used arguments that Holding used in his essay.

And Holding even used the argument that the Epistles of John mentioned 'false prophets', which, by pure coincidence, Dee Dee also used.

[dizzle]

Dear Steven:

You did not answer if we are going to take this into the Gym or not.

Keep my mind that the assertion has been that you are inaccurate by OMISSION. And of course since I have explicitly denied using Holding as a source for my response, you are calling me untruthful as well... but step back a sec...

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps Holding and I have some similar foundational sources and that accounts for any similarities?? Hmmm??? Like say for instance... Gary DeMar (who I just checked is cited in Holding's piece as his source - and who in fact I did use with others)?? Since I explicitly DENIED using Holding's essay as a source for my response to you, wouldn't that have been the more reasonable assumption to make? But instead you left the impression at Errancy that I was simply a parrot of Holding mouthing his arguments... and FAILED to mention your own crowing about where Holding and I may not agree as you kept trying to sow dissension here by pointing out. Hmmm, that is not the impression you left at Errancy is it? My main thrust was made in a way that is not even remotely close to anything Holding said in style or format, or even argumentation. All you have shown is that we have used many of the same supporting historical facts (which since history is finite is to be expected, wouldn't you think?) - using the same supporting historical facts, is not the same as using the same arguments, and especially not the same as your impression that I simply used Holding's arguments in toto. But of course you never dealt with the main thrust, choosing instead to major in the minors.

And then of course there is

She is now reduced to quoting what even Christians say are dubious, spurious pieces.


Which is a blatant misrepresentation of the true state of affairs. There was one reference out of entire piece that could be dropped without any damage to my argument.... hardly a case of being "reduced" to doing something (and I will deal with the issue of that piece once i know where you and I will continue this debate)... why must you overexaggerate in that fashion?

And your "sheer coincidence" comment is cute... and this serves to prove to me how you would rather find a collusion than explore an alternative theory, namely, that Holding and I used similar authors for our work, and not each other. But that is just not as exciting.

[Rusty T]

And I have good reason to believe it was the former.
Please explain your "good reasons."

I refuse to play this game. You are convinced that my motives were suspect. I cannot convince you otherwise. However, Dee Dee recognized that Holding was violating the rules. That's all I wanted. I do not need to argue with someone who "knows" me better than I know myself.

rusty

[dizzle]

So Steven.. are we going into the Gym or not? It doesn't matter to me either way... I will continue in either place, I just want to know how to proceed.

[stevencarrwork]

03-08-2003 @ 08:30 PM
Dee Dee Warren:

You did not answer if we are going to take this into the Gym or not.

Keep my mind that the assertion has been that you are inaccurate by OMISSION. And of course since I have explicitly denied using Holding as a source for my response, you are calling me untruthful as well... but step back a sec...

Since I explicitly DENIED using Holding's essay as a source for my response to you, wouldn't that have been the more reasonable assumption to make?

My main thrust was made in a way that is not even remotely close to anything Holding said in style or format, or even argumentation.

I gave Holding's article as a link, and in the very next post you wrote
'Give me some time to refer to the links you referred to for I believe we are doing a semantical dance here.'

Pardon me for assuming that when you said you were going to refer to the Holding article I linked to, that you actually did what you said.

And when I see Holding's arguments coming back at me, I think it is a reasonable assumption that you kept your word and did refer to the links I referred to.


As for taking it into the Gym, I'm not sure what you mean. What proposition you are proposing?

I gave quotes from Holding's arguments, quotes from your post (the one you wrote after asking for time to refer to Holding's essay), and readers must judge for themselves.

All is linked to and readily available on this thread. How can I be arguing by ommission when I tell people where to read what my debate partners say?

[jcurtis]

03-08-2003 @ 06:06 PM
tizzidale:

Hey, I'm staying out of this one, but I did find it interesting that Dee Dee considers what Holding just posted to be satire.



And yet your rules state:


Is your lack of perspective hindered by your head being up Holding's nether regions?

rusty

I'm new here but I read the rules before signing up. To me it looks like JP Holding and Dee Dee are in violation of the standards set up. Furthermore, it looks to me like Dee is JP Holding's sockpuppet. Isn't she one of the moderators? Doesn't look good at all. Calling it as I see it.

Johern

[stevencarrwork]

03-08-2003 @ 10:27 PM
jcurtis:



I'm new here but I read the rules before signing up. To me it looks like JP Holding and Dee Dee are in violation of the standards set up. Furthermore, it looks to me like Dee is JP Holding's sockpuppet. Isn't she one of the moderators? Doesn't look good at all. Calling it as I see it.



Dee Dee is certainly not JP Holding's sockpuppet. And I don't think she has violated any standards.

[dizzle]

03-08-2003 @ 05:32 PM
stevencarrwork:



Dee Dee is certainly not JP Holding's sockpuppet. And I don't think she has violated any standards.

Well Steven I sincerely thank you for your fairness despite our differences.

[dizzle]

Dear Steven:


I gave Holding's article as a link, and in the very next post you wrote
'Give me some time to refer to the links you referred to for I believe we are doing a semantical dance here.'

Pardon me for assuming that when you said you were going to refer to the Holding article I linked to, that you actually did what you said.

No Steven, context once again belies you…. Let’ s back up a bit… I had said…

I am not sure I understand your question, or perhaps more accurately, I do not understand your point. Are you trying to state that Christians are claiming that no one has done this? If so, I do not know what Christians you mean for none that I know fail to recognize that there have always been messianic pretenders.

to which you responded..

There are Christians who claim that nobody in ancient Jewish society would call himself the Messiah
http://www.tektonics.org/secretmess.html

And Christians speak with even greater clarity in
http://www.tektonics.org/olivet01.html

And then I replied that I needed to refer to those links… notice the context. I referred to those links specifically to address the issue of the point that nobody in the ancient Jewish world would call himself the Messiah and that is specifically what I did. (and I notice your broad brushing – CHRISTIANS [plural] say such and such – last time I checked Holding was just one person). And notice, that I never once used that argument but took a different approach which formed the whole main thrust of my argument which you never dealt with, again underscoring that a representation that I simply used Holding’s arguments is grossly inaccurate, as I have already detailed in my previous post.

And when I see Holding's arguments coming back at me, I think it is a reasonable assumption that you kept your word and did refer to the links I referred to.

Again, you are repeating inaccuracies as you were already corrected on, and I am now correcting you once again… and of course none of this deals with your total mischaracterization that I was ‘reduced’ to quoting forgeries and your cherry-picking of my posts.…

As for taking it into the Gym, I'm not sure what you mean. What proposition you are proposing?

I am suggesting that you formulate a debate challenge to me based upon your initial proposition.

I gave quotes from Holding's arguments, quotes from your post (the one you wrote after asking for time to refer to Holding's essay), and readers must judge for themselves.

And my prior post completely addressed this.. and let me point out another game you are playing…. In your last post you said,

Pardon me for assuming that when you said you were going to refer to the Holding article I linked to, that you actually did what you said.

Please don’t try to feed us that….. if your intent was truly in that vein you would have read this much earlier in the debate:

You assume too much. I did not use any of Holding’s material in my response to you.

And realized that I did not use Holding’s articles… and would have come to the more reasonable conclusion that Holding and I probably read some of the same source books (such as DeMar). You are only eager to take what I say at face value and believe it when you can use it for polemical purposes. It does not work that way.

All is linked to and readily available on this thread. How can I be arguing by ommission when I tell people where to read what my debate partners say?

Providing a link does not relieve you of the responsibility to be accurate in your representations. You have several times in this thread found places where I did not state things entirely correctly. After you pointed them out and reviewed them, I conceded and amended my statements. Why can’t you do the same? Your characterization of my arguments was inaccurate and misleading.

[ryukyuk]

it is interesting that most would claim to be the archangel kinda of hard to hide it really according to hebrew faith pre christianity daniel 12:1 you can see who the deliver of Yisreal is hard to miss it but in REVALATION it is clear since the lamb was the only one given authority over heaven and earth to deal with sin and it is MICHEAL the ARCHANGEL who is tossing HASATAN meaning ADVASARY OF GOD (as in any ) out of heaven (the sky).

[stevencarrwork]

03-09-2003 @ 04:10 AM
Dee Dee Warren:
And notice, that I never once used that argument but took a different approach which formed the whole main thrust of my argument which you never dealt with, again underscoring that a representation that I simply used HoldingÂ’s arguments is grossly inaccurate, as I have already detailed in my previous post.




Well, if you say you never used the article you asked for time to refer to, then I believe you. But you can hardly blame me for thinking that if you asked for time to refer to an article before replying, then there was a good chance you be using the article you referred to.

And you did give the same people Holding did. Indeed, you are claiming that Holding and you used the same source for your arguments which rather implies you are using the same arguments as Holding's.

And it is perfectly reasonable to refer to arguments used by Holding as Holding's arguments, even if you are going to quibble that he was not the originator. Are they De Mar's arguments, even if he did not originate them?

And let us not forget that you have used Holding's postings on this thread as support, at least once. Did Holding's postings on this thread contain no arguments? Somebody quotes Holding's postings as support and complains bitterly when I write that she is using Holdings' arguments.

And I don't think I ever saw Holding state that the arguments you were using were not the ones he would use, and that he was distancing himself from your arguments.

03-09-2003 @ 04:10 AM
Dee Dee Warren:


I am suggesting that you formulate a debate challenge to me based upon your initial proposition.



My initial proposition was a question.

I shall repeat it :-

'In Matthew 24:5 Jesus says 'For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, ' and will deceive many.'

Who was the first person after this prophecy was made , who said 'I am the Christ'?

Actually, I don't think you have ever answered this question and given a name and a date.

I gave a short note to the errancy list, saying look at this thread, where such-and-such is happening. (You asked me to invite people to look, although I already had)

Do you expect a short notice, summarising a thread, and requesting people look at the thread, to repeat all the arguments in a 6 page thread?

[stevencarrwork]

03-02-2003 @ 10:05 PM
stevencarrwork:

In Matthew 24:5 Jesus says 'For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, ' and will deceive many.'

Who was the first person after this prophecy was made , who said 'I am the Christ'?


For the benefit of those wondering what this 'main point' could possibly be that Dee Dee and Holding are talking about, I repeat my original question and invite them once more to answer it.

[jpholding]

Since it seems some will focus intently on it for distractive purposes, allow me to elucidate my reference:

Acts 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

After observing Stevie for several years now -- responding to places where he has been refuted with silence, and never admitting error (even as here); after (for example) such acts as assuming himself expert enough to cancel out the findings of an eminent Biblical scholar with decades of experience in the social sciences, whose work is backed up by decades of even greater research -- merely by popping open an NIV and reading a word there in English! --

I find that mental perversion is a quite suitable description of his twisted thinking process, as illustrated above -- and that of a number of adherents of the Farrell Till school (not all on the Errancy list, to say).

I never knew the depths that this small crowd would descend to until -- beginning with FTill excusing away his ridiculous "90% of the website" reading, and his whining self-justifying comments for harrassing me at home, and now most lately Jim Eisele claiming victory and expressing direct wishes to deconvert people -- they showed up here and started plying their trade.

I'm glad they did. It's more damage than I could ever do.

[dizzle]

Dear Steven:

You are unclear on your intentions.... can we move this to the Gym and conduct the debate there? I do not want to further answer your question until I hear yes or no on that issue.

How about this... I am going to go and start a Gym thread asking you to debate me on the issue there. The link is:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=30694#post30694
Please go there and accept or deny the proposition.

[dizzle]

Thank you JP for your further clarification. My earlier concern about the comments was that readers would be unclear about what was meant by "perverse" and take it very wrong, thus, my cautionary note. You have clarified your position, and Steven is now certainly free to defend himself.

[Rusty T]

and. . . ?

Isn't it wonderful to live in your world, where your dislike of one or two people allows you to dismiss everyone who may or may not be associated with them?

I mentioned earlier that perhaps Dee had her head in your nether regions. I now know there isn't enough room for hers and yours.

rusty

[dizzle]

Dear Tizzi:

You are a careless reader. JP made it clear this WAS NOT a blanket statement about all errantists, a comment which I would certainly have a problem with if he did. So as you asked me to not to keep insinuating that Steven did not provide a link at Errancy, I ask you to retract that comment as inaccurate (I am not saying that as a moderator, simply as a debate participant).

And I notice your statement about heads being up hindquarters could be interpreted by some as "rude" and "inflammatory." I do not, and am not asking you to stop, I am just reminding you of the freedom to comment which you also take full advantage here of at TWeb so don't be a hypocrite.

[Rusty T]

You say

Still waiting for you to deal with the main point... but here is a dare to you Steven... instead of merely mouthing off over at Errancy... please invite them to come and look for themselves... and since there are a vocal few who seem to find navigating this site with its very common and user-friendly Vbulletin software, you have better provide a very specific link.

And you want me to retract that I said you were insinuating that Steve didn't link? Okay I retract that. I maintain that you OUTRIGHT said that Steve didn't link.

Also, if I were speaking literally, then yes, claiming Holding's head was up his *** would be very damning indeed. However, we all know that I was speaking metaphorically. I watched my words, and will continue to do so.

rusty

[dizzle]

And Tizzi, I retracted my comment, and acknowledged that Steven provided a link. You see, I acknowledge that I am very human and mess up, and am quick to fix those things. Steven provided a link that I was ignorant of at the time I made that post. Rather than defend my ignorance in a misplaced show of pride, I corrected myself. You on the other hand, when shown an error in what you say, play the fingerpointing game at someone else. You are playing the hypocrite. You misrepresented JP and now are too foolish to correct yourself. Suit yourself.

Metaphorically or not, your words could be considered by some to be offensive. I am not offended, nor are they outside the boundaries of what is allowed here by any means whatsover, but I am showing your hypocrisy, which AV had already done as well. I am not going to bicker with you any longer... the thread has been hijacked enough. Do you have anything substantive to add to this conversation, or are you simply the official Thread Heckler?

[Rusty T]

You wish me to retract what mistake? I did not misrepresent Holding. Here's what he said
I never knew the depths that this small crowd would descend to until -- beginning with FTill excusing away his ridiculous "90% of the website" reading, and his whining self-justifying comments for harrassing me at home, and now most lately Jim Eisele claiming victory and expressing direct wishes to deconvert people -- they showed up here and started plying their trade.


Here's what I said
Isn't it wonderful to live in your world, where your dislike of one or two people allows you to dismiss everyone who may or may not be associated with them?

I will not retract this assessment of mine. However, my subject line perhaps went too far. Holding doesn't dislike all errantists - only those he can dismiss for being associated with Farrell Till.

I am done with this thread, so throw your hands up and rejoice - the "hijacking" has ended.

rusty

[dizzle]

03-09-2003 @ 06:50 AM
jpholding:

I find that mental perversion is a quite suitable description of his twisted thinking process, as illustrated above -- and that of a number of adherents of the Farrell Till school (not all on the Errancy list, to say).


Emphasis mine.

03-09-2003 @ 09:18 AM
tizzidale:

and. . . ?

Isn't it wonderful to live in your world, where your dislike of one or two people allows you to dismiss everyone who may or may not be associated with them?

Emphasis mine.

Point proven.

[AVmetro]

It's amazing what a little thorough reading *would* accomplish :ponder:.

[jpholding]

I imagine Rusty has gone where no man has gone before by now (NOT the ladies' room) but for interest, I would not have classfied him in that crowd listed - I haven't seen him post much on Errancy, enough to make such a justification, and what little I have seen suggests that he is there mainly for social purposes.

Reading is Fundamental. :yipee:

[Etcetera]

Steven Carr:

Greetings.

You asked for the names of people claiming to be christ in the years 30-70, and I will supply two of them. Ironically, most of the names put forth on this thread I would regard as poor fulfillments of a prediction of people saying: “I am the messiah,” while the two gentlemen that almost indisputably made messianic claims during the Jewish war with Rome have gone unnoticed.

But first two important items:

1. Since the question of sources seems to have surfaced a number of times on this thread, my primary source is Richard A. Horsley, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs.

2. I am not certain what meaning you are pouring into the word messiah, but it simply means the anointed one, the one meant by God to be king of the nation of Israel:

1 Samuel 12:1-3: Then Samuel said to all Israel: “Behold, I have listened to your voice in all that you said to me, and I have appointed a king over you. And now here is the king walking before you, but I am old and gray, and behold, my sons are with you. And I have walked before you from my youth even to this day. Here I am; bear witness against me before Yahweh and his anointed [mashiyach, messiah]....

Saul is the king, the anointed one, the messiah. That this meaning remained well past New Testament times is evident in this rabbinic passage:

Jerusalem Talmud, Taanit 4.8: Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai said: “Rabbi Akiba my teacher used to explain the passage, ‘a star shall go forth from Jacob,’ thus: ‘Kosiba goes forth from Jacob.’ Again when rabbi Akiba saw Bar Kochba, he cried out: ‘This is the king, the messiah!’ Rabbi Yohanan ben Torta answered him: ‘Akiba, grass will grow from your cheek-bones and the son of David will still not have come.’”

Notice that king and messiah are in apposition; they are virtual synonyms.

So we are not looking for anyone to necessarily be stating: “I am the messiah.” We are looking for a claim to kingship over the Jews. Besides, our principal source for the Jewish war is Josephus, and he, as Horsley notes on page 119, “studiously avoids Jewish ‘messianic’ language in his accounts.” Nevertheless, as Horsley points out, the messianic claims shine through. On to the claimants....

The first claimant was Menaham, son of Judas the Galilean:

Josephus, War of the Jews 2.433-434, as cited in Horsley, page 118: [Menahem] took his followers and marched off to Masada. There he broke open king Herod’s arsenal and armed other brigands, in addition to his own group. With these men as his bodyguard, he returned to Jerusalem as a king....

The reference to the arming of henchmen merely makes Menahem a bandit. The reference to returning to Jerusalem as a king, ready to oust the Romans, makes him a messianic claimant. This stands out all the more since “we have no evidence... that Judas of Galilee or his successors, apart from Menahem, ever made any messianic claims” (Horsley, page 119).

The second claimant was Simon ben Giora:

From Josephus, War of the Jews 4.507-513: [The body of Simon’s followers] was no longer an army of slaves or brigands, but included many citizens who obeyed him like a king.

From Josephus, War of the Jews 4.574-578: Arrogantly consenting to rule, [Simon] entered the city as one who would expel the zealots, and he was greeted as savior and guardian by the people.

At the end of the revolt, with Jerusalem all but taken by the Roman soldiers, Simon attempted to escape through some tunnels, but his path was blocked. His next actions speak volumes:

Josephus, War of the Jews 7.29-31: So Simon... put on white tunics with a purple cape fastened over them, and popped up out of the ground at the very place where the temple had once stood. At first, those who saw him were dumbfounded and stood stock-still, but after a while they came nearer and asked who he was. Simon refused to tell them, and instead ordered them to summon the general. They ran to get him, and Terentius Rufus, left in command of the garrison, soon arrived. After learning the whole truth from Simon, he bound and kept him under guard and sent an account of his capture to Caesar.

Notice that Simon is making a claim here: His purple robe, the symbol of royalty, announces him as king. Caesar then commands that Simon participate in the triumphal procession in Rome, which procession...:

From Josephus, War of the Jews 7.153-155: ...concluded at the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, where it came to a halt, for it was an ancient custom to wait there until someone announced the death sentence for the enemy’ general. This was Simon ben Giora.... When his death was announced, it was greeted with universal acclamation, and the sacrifices were begun....

Horsley comments:

Page 126: These two events, Simon’s ceremonial surrender and his ritual execution at the climax of the imperial triumphal procession, reveal both that Simon understood himself as the messiah and that the conquering Romans recognized him as the leader of the nation.

I might dissent somewhat from Horsley on the Roman perspective, since the requirement for such a ritual sacrifice seems to have fallen short of kingship, but he is clearly on target with Simon’s symbolic act of donning a royal robe before surrendering. He is eloquently making a messianic claim.

Now, two claimants fall short of the “many” promised on Olivet. But they are a start, especially considering the paucity of the evidence from this time period to begin with (compare page 118 of Horsley). You are probably correct to note that the other candidates considered on this thread, with the possible exception of Simon Magus, do not really qualify as messianic claimants, and indeed Horsley handles them differently than he does Simon ben Giora and Menahem. Theudas and the Egyptian he lists under prophets, not messiahs.

Regards.

Etcetera.

[Etcetera]

J. P. Holding:

Hello again in the name of our Lord and savior!

Been a while. Still at the old apologetics game, I see.

I had a question for you on the messianic silence that you bring up in those links so kindly provided by Carr:

1.

I have noted in other contexts that until the time of Bar Kochba, there is no evidence of any person actually coming forth and saying, “I am Messiah” or any person being identified as such, and I have argued that to make such a clear identification of one's “Messianic self” was likely not permitted socially.

2.

Previously I have cited social reasons why Jesus had to be circumspect in His proclamations of divinity: a need for Jesus to avoid the loaded term “Messiah” which might be assumed to be military; the social constraint of Jewish apocryphal texts, including the Psalms of Solomon and 4 Ezra, which said that only God could declare who the Messiah was.

I know that Charlesworth, for one, claimed that a would-be messiah could not claim to be such due to some matter of propriety, but I also know that other scholars (among them N. T. Wright, if I remember correctly) question this claim. I was wondering, then, if you could provide the passages from the psalms of Solomon and 4 Ezra that you are interpreting as enjoining messianic silence. My mind is not yet made up between the two positions.

In the name.

Etcetera.

[dizzle]

Good information there Etcetera, thank you. I would still disagree though on the premise of the other candidates mentioned not qualifying (and the messianic office in the OT was not strictly kingly - so a categorization of prophet does not rule out the contenders -i.e. God will raise up a prophet like unto myself-) and can support my contention, but thank you for providing some that I had not considered. You though of course are proving my very point that it was not required to have a record of mouthing the words "I am the Messiah" in order to have a fulfillment of that prophecy. I will be grabbing a copy of that book, and utilizing this additional information so I thank you for it.

[dizzle]

Etcetera... what work by NT Wright are you alluding to?

[jpholding]

Why Etc., my old friend! It's good to see you! Do drop me a personal update by email.

I think you will find debating with Stevie and other Tillites rather :argh: Rather like the last time we forumized. But perhaps you need a little self-inflicted pain? :smile:

How silly are they? You see, Stevie is drawing these arguments of his (cough) straight from FTill himself...who also himself had cited..wait for it...Richard Horsley, years ago, to the effect of saying that Messianic claimants were a "dime a dozen" in the time of Jesus. He did this to try and defuse the relevance of the Mara bar Serapion reference often taken to refer to Jesus. Seems that the argument changes as need be...

Now in answer to your question:

I know that Charlesworth, for one, claimed that a would-be messiah could not claim to be such due to some matter of propriety, but I also know that other scholars (among them N. T. Wright, if I remember correctly) question this claim.

Well, it is not just propriety but a matter of the means of an honor-shame society. To make such a bold honor claim ("I am Messiah!") would have been offensive socially. One had to be recognized as Messiah by others, not claim it for one's self, under the rules of honor. I can give you some reading references on this if you like -- a vast subject most Christians and Skeptics are unaware of (and often stub their toe on -- see how FTill did, and Stevie did, at http://www.tektonics.org/tillstill7-5.html).

I was wondering, then, if you could provide the passages from the psalms of Solomon and 4 Ezra that you are interpreting as enjoining messianic silence

Dear me, I first wrote that years ago, so do not recall, but it was from J. C. O'Neill's Who Did Jesus Think He Was? I did not look further from him because he was not aware of the honor-shame issue.

Good to see you again! :smile: I'll be back later.

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

...what work by NT Wright are you alluding to?

It was either The New Testament and the People of God or Jesus and the Victory of God (not any of his earlier stuff like Climax of the Covenant).

I own neither book, but have read both... at least a couple of times each. I could check them out again, but if you have a copy just scanning the author index for Charlesworth might work. Wright refers to him a few times, I think, but not so many that you would be swamped. Of course, I could be mistaken; I might be remembering some other fellow, but I know that I have read scholarly doubts about the hypothesis of required messianic silence.

...and the messianic office in the OT was not strictly kingly - so a categorization of prophet does not rule out the contenders -i.e. God will raise up a prophet like unto myself.

You may be correct. So where is a prophet (or the prophet) called the anointed one? I am aware of kings and priests, and the Qumran community certainly expected a priestly messiah, but who was expecting (specifically) a prophetic messiah?

You though of course are proving my very point that it was not required to have a record of mouthing the words "I am the Messiah" in order to have a fulfillment of that prophecy.

In fact, symbolic actions often spoke louder than words. Ezekiel's brick, Isaiah's nakedness, Jesus' fig tree, Theudas' promise to part the Jordan (like Joshua), and so on.

In him.

Etcetera.

[Etcetera]

J. P. Holding:

Well, it is not just propriety but a matter of the means of an honor-shame society. To make such a bold honor claim ("I am Messiah!") would have been offensive socially. One had to be recognized as Messiah by others, not claim it for one's self, under the rules of honor.

Hmmm. I have read on honor and shame, even taken a class on Roman society that majored on honor and shame, and what you are claiming just does not ring true to me. Of course, honor calls for others to recognize one's capacity, but I am not seeing where it calls for silence on the part of the claimant. As long as the claimant could back his claim up....

Anyway, nice chatting with you again. I stop by this board with some frequency, though I do not really post that much, so perhaps we will have a chance to either tag-team or debate sometime.

:thumb:

In the name.

Etcetera.

[stevencarrwork]

03-11-2003 @ 08:32 PM
Etcetera:

Steven Carr:

Greetings.

You asked for the names of people claiming to be christ in the years 30-70, and I will supply two of them.

Thanks for the info. I shall look more closely when I have sobered up :-)

I should point out that Josephis is careful not to use the word Messiah about anybody, although this is almost certainly a matter of politics on his part.

[jpholding]

Etc.: Check into Malina and Rohrbaugh's Social Science commentaries on the Gospels. They go rather deeply into the subject.

Stevie: You'll sober up faster when you get your nose out of the Till bottle. :smile:

[dizzle]

In fact, symbolic actions often spoke louder than words. Ezekiel's brick, Isaiah's nakedness, Jesus' fig tree, Theudas' promise to part the Jordan (like Joshua), and so on.


Exactly!!!

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

Even symbolic actions, however, will not forge a necessary link between the eschatological prophet and the Davidic messiah. This is the distinction of which I speak:

John 1:20-21: And he confessed and did not deny, and confessed: "I am not the Christ." And they asked him: "What then? Are you Elijah?" And he said: "I am not." "Are you the prophet?" And he answered: "No."

If the prophet of Deuteronomy 18:15-19 was expected to be messianic in some sense, then it was silly to ask John, after he had already denied being the messiah, whether or not he was the prophet.

One can perhaps sense this same distinction between the messiah and the prophet in that Josephus, while reluctant to speak in messianic terms, has no problem calling people prophets, even when their symbolic actions are of revolutionary and even eschatological significance.

If you have some text in mind that speaks of the prophet as the messiah, then I will certainly adjust my view and cast the net wider. Just because Jesus combined messiahship with prophethood does not mean that it was a general expectation at the time.

In his service.

Etcetera.

[yo lunch]

In Matthew 24:5 Jesus says 'For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, ' and will deceive many.'

Who was the first person after this prophecy was made , who said 'I am the Christ'?

I find it hard to believe that nobody after that date has ever personally claimed to be the Messiah.

Not hard to believe at all. If Jesus himself returned, he also would not be believed. After all, it was he who said not to believe anyone who said he was him!:wink: